What is the men's rights movement?

The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) also sometimes known as the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is a pluralistic movement of men and women who have identified certain problems facing men and boys. It is comprised of many organisations and individuals that are loosely affiliated. Despite this, participants within the MRM maintain a largely consistent position on men's rights. The movement accepts robust and frank internal discussions, which are generally conducted in public. Individuals within the MRM are sometimes known as Men's Rights Activists or Men's Rights Advocates (MRAs).

The Men's Rights Movement is widely misunderstood in the wider community and misrepresented in the mainstream media. The term men's human rights movement, established by Peter Wright and Paul Elam, is sometimes used as an alternative. Both terms are correct.

The MRM is inherently non-partisan. The left today is more readily ide ntified with feminism. The reality though is that both the left and right of the traditional political axis are quite happy to throw men under a bus.

We're proposing something new. Not the tradionalism of old, and not the approach taken by feminists which left men with their traditional responsibilities but reduced their place in society.

Gynocentrism

We reject gynocentrim.

Gynocentrism refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this. Anything can be considered gynocentric when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or feminist) point of view.

Traditionalism is often tied up with gynocentrism. Traditional societies demand that men remain stoic in the face of their own pain and that they give their lives up for the community.

Similarly the MRM reject chivalry as a gynocentric worldview.

Peterson's message is softer than ours. He relies on gynocentrism, a familiar and comforting concept to many people. Same with CHS who, like Peterson, correctly points out problems facing men and boys, but won't take the argument to its logical conclusion.

Make it clear that society increasingly criminalises male behaviour.

Feminism

Rejection of female victim narrative.

We will not compromise our principles.

They lie, we keep pressing forward. They shriek, we keep pressing forward. They obstruct, we keep pressing forward. On and on it goes...

Hypoagency

If a woman cheats and people ask "what did he do to her" then they are denying the agency of women.

If a woman stabs a man and people ask "what did he do to deserve it" then they are denying the agency of women.

Male Disposability

Reject any claim that men are obligated to protect women.

Men no longer have a responsibility to protect women.

Men refused to be defined in terms of their responsibilities to women

A man's life is worth just as much as a woman's life.

one of the cornerstones of the MRM is that we insist men should be entitled to live the life they choose. They should not have an obligation to protect others just because they are men.

There used to be a social contract in which men took on certain responsibilities in return for respect and status in society. That social contract has been broken. This social contract may have been problematic for both men and women but it at least it was based on reciprocity. Men must now be free to live the lives they want to live.

Rejection of women hitting men even though this is widely accepted in Western society.

Sexually assaulting a minor boy is as bad as sexually assaulting a minor girl. Many in society, and the MSM, refer to these differently and we call them out on it.

Ultimately this is about men leading the life that they want to lead. If a man chooses to be a soft man (rejected by the red pillers) that is fine as long as he realised that feminists may be trying to get him to be soft. The key is informed consent.

Stoicism is fine if the man chooses it but it must not be forced on him.

Do not consider men to be oppressed. Rather, men have problems that need to be addressed.

There's a difference between a man choosing to take a difficult path in life and being forced or coerced in to doing so. Many societies have forced or coerced men to give up their lives for the greater good. Yes this can be a fine line with societies technically leaving men to choose but in reality forcing them through soft power.

If anything could be said to be at the heart of the MRM it would be rejection of male disposability and gynocentrism.

That means leaving men open to choose their own path.

The Draft

Someone asked:"Was it acceptable for Britain and the US to have conscription during WW2?"

A good question. My position is that if a society concludes it needs a draft to ensure its own survival then that draft should apply equally to all adult members of the society.

Someone commented: "In the real world, there are occasionally calamities where the net effort of a huge number of people is required to survive and minimize damage."

True. In those cases I expect a modern society to require all adult members of the society to bear the cost.

Someone asked "Was it acceptable to shame draft dodgers during those times?"

I don't believe it was. The white feather campaign was a shaming tactic and was often misdirected against men who had already served.

I don't agree that a draft is primary for frontline 

combat soldiers. There are several non-combat roles for each combat role in any modern military. Israel hardly puts women in to combat (they may volunteer) but still has a widespread draft for women.

Only a minority of military roles are combat roles.

Rejection of shaming language

No need to use phrases like "get some balls" as English has a gender-neutral term "get a backbone" that means the same thing.

Rejection of mancave and similar ideas.

We avoid man up, man cave and similar terms.

Distinction with Anti-Feminism

Circumcision as divisor between MRAs and some anti-feminists.

anti-feminism is very broad and includes people who are very traditionalist and gynocentric as well as people who entirely reject traditionalism and gynocentrism. This is one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) why many anti-feminist groups struggle with internal cohesion compared to men's rights groups.

Equality

Equality of opportunity

Equality before the law

• Equal punishment for equal offences.
• Men are just as entitled not to be touched without their consent as women

Individuality

The rights of the individual are central to the MRM.

Rule of Law

Presumption of innocence.

Meritocracy

Rejection of gender shaming

Rejection of political correctness

Rejection of tone policing

Willingness to have our claims tested

• willingness to have well behaved feminists attend our events

AMRA Objectives

• To engage in reasoned peaceful advocacy
• To eliminate gynocentrism and male disposability
• To resolve certain issues facing men and boys
• To achieve equality of opportunity for all
• To oppose enforcement of traditional gender roles

When an adult women has sex with a boy it is not an 'affair'.

Women gave up their responsibilities and gained more freedoms. We're saying that men should be freed of their responsibilities too. It's time to close the deal.

reject anti-semitism BDS on continuum with feminism

Abortion: "Opinions vary on abortion among MRAs. Some support a women's right to choose, some oppose abortion and many take no position other than to say that whatever right a woman has, a man must have an equivalent right"

The media and other detractors claim many groups to be involved with "men's rights" while they do not make any such claim and we don't make the claim either.

Feminists & trads have different aims Equality of opportunity Equality before the law We owe women nothing

Relationships

We do not reject relationships as some MGTOW do. Rather, we advocate for men to fully understand the legal and social consequences of entering a relationship before doing so. Whether they then go on to have a relationship or not is a matter for themselves.

Disemination of Ideas

In recent years I've been thinking that most people will end up hearing about ideas that originated here from others such as Peterson & CHS. If this is so then the MRM really becomes like a torch in the dark, lighting the way.

Identity Politics

Fundamentally reject identity politics.

One of the greatest misunderstandings about the men's rights movement and anti-feminism is that they in any way involve identity politics. Merely identifying with a group does not imply identity politics.

It's become very popular lately to reject 'labels' but the truth is that group identity is one of the most powerful tools that we as a species have. Human societies were built on group identity long before the written word. Yes, even free thinkers can identity with a group. The use of the term group identity still doesn't imply identity politics.

The key difference is that identity politics involves grouping on the basis of characteristics with which people identify. We do not do this. Every major men's rights organisation has women in leadership roles for example. This is because those women were willing and able to fill those positions. Anyone who wants to help us address the problems facing men and boys is welcome. Doesn't matter if they are male, female, intersex, whatever.

Compare to feminist groups. Many exclude men from leadership roles and some exclude men men entirely - calling them 'allies'. Some don't even want male allies. That's identity politics.

It is true that some feminist groups talk about men's issues. We differ from feminist groups in two key ways:

(1) Feminists insist on controlling the narrative. Eg, Big Red, York U IMD.

(2) Feminists often want men to have fairly traditional gender responsibilities while women have maximum freedom.